< April 1	April 3 >

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - as with the recently completed CFDs for sports broadcasting and hockey families, and in keeping with how other eponymous categories are treated, these are overcategorization. The family relationships between the family members can easily be noted through interlinking the various articles, with perhaps an article on the family possibly being appropriate. Eponymous categories should be reserved for those people or families which have significant amounts of related material that is not easily interlinked, which is not the case with these categories. Otto4711 23:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, if they're all notable for auto racing, then their articles surely already link to one another within each family. The categories are redundant. Delete them. — coel acan — 03:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Also, the names aren't restrictive enough. My daughter-in-law is a Hill, but that's not her family up there. Doczilla 05:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - For specific families, the articles can be linked easily enough through the text, even if the families contain five or six family members. The categories are not necessary. Dr. Submillimeter 08:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify/Articlize70.55.201.210 03:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete (there is already a Baldwin brothers article). Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - The family relationships among the various people are appropriately interlinked through the various articles on the individuals involved. As with eponymous categories named for a single person, a family category should contain significant numbers of articles that are not easily interlinked. These are both overcategorization. Otto4711 23:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to the information already within the articles. — coel acan — 03:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as unnecessary. Also, there are many Baldwins in the world. Doczilla 05:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Links through the articles would be more appropriate to explain the relations among these people. For the people in Category:Baldwin family, explanations are needed to explain the relations to people named Baldwin. Dr. Submillimeter 08:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Baldwin family, Listify Baldwin brothers and turn it into an article. 132.205.44.134 22:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Streets and squares by city to Category:Streets by city. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Streets and squares by city to Category:Streets by city

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Streets and squares are not the same thing, making this too narrow an intersection for a meaningful “by city” category. While some squares are street intersections, many others are not. The nature of a square differs dramatically in different contexts. In many cases, the fact that something is a square is a non-defining characteristic, and would be more usefully categorized under “parks in Foo,” “buildings and structures in Foo,” etc., which many squares already are. Streets on the other hand, are stable across contexts (a street is a street is a street), thus the flexibility needed for squares at the city level category is undermined by attaching the two at the general level.

This proposal may or may not reduce the total number of categories, but would have clear advantages to make navigation of these cats easier:

Streamline the category scheme by making this chain move logically from general to specific. For many cities, streets and squares currently come together at the general level only to be split apart again. (e.g., Category:Streets =>Category:Streets and squares by city =>Category:Streets and squares in Boston=>Category:Streets in Boston)
Make the categories more context-appropriate and more precise, while facilitating standardization in category naming. Cities with no “squares” articles, such as Category:Streets and squares in Ankara wouldn’t imply that they do, and city categories like Category:Streets in Kolkata would not appear to be deviating from naming conventions as they currently do in Category:Streets and squares by city. (See related proposal below). bobanny 21:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename - Streets are transportation corridors that sometimes surround squares, Town squares and other squares are not, and squares vary widely in their application worldwide, from being used for the names of malls, to large and historic public spaces. They are not anywhere near synonymous and categorizing them together at this level is contrary to their very meaning.--Keefer4 | Talk 21:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support This will improve navigation. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, good idea. For any big city, one or more "street" or "square" cats are useful, but if the only purpose of a "streets and squares" supercat is to hold two subcats (one for "streets" and one for "squares") that's not particularly useful. >Radiant< 08:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I've always been confused why they are grouped together. This implies all the subcats will have to be split, too? Some of them, like Boston, that's no problem, but for others this will take some examination. Rigadoun (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, I'd be willing to go through them and separate streets and squares. Where does all this Wiki-fun end? bobanny 19:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Plazas to Category:Squares and plazas by city. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Plazas to Category:Squares and plazas by city

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Per the above proposal, and also because it is redundant with the parent Category:Town squares. Unlike streets, plazas and squares are roughly equivalent, if not synonymous. Any articles in this category that are not city-specific (e.g., Plaza, Plaza de Armas, and Zócalo) can be moved to Category:Town squares, since they are variations on the subject of that category, keeping like with like. bobanny 21:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - A much better fit for squares on a category level is here, per nom rationale.--Keefer4 | Talk 22:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Squares go better with plazas and streets. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above streets discussion. Rigadoun (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge all (i.e. including Category:Piazzas) into Category:Squares and plazas by city. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Piazzas of Italy and Category:Piazzas outside Italy to Category:Piazzas

Upmerge, Only one piazza is listed outside of Italy. Unless there are numerous other piazzas outside Italy that merit their own articles, the geographical breakdown amounts to overcategorization. bobanny 21:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Both of these categories should be incorporated into the categories on squares and possibly renamed using "squares". Piazzas seem to be identical to squares in form and fucntion. However, I do not see how to merge these categories into the category tree on squares very easily. Dr. Submillimeter 08:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They could just be listed under "Squares and plazas" per above nomination, assuming piazza is simply the Italian translation. As is, this is a subcat of Category:Town squares. bobanny 19:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Photos of athletes to Category:Images of sportspeople. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Photos of athletes to Category:Images of sportspeople

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, amending to "sportspeople" in line with Wikipedia's standard usage of that term for categories that cover all sports rather than just (track and field) athletics, and to "images" because the category might include drawings or paintings. Choalbaton 20:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, nom makes good sense. No reason to oppose this. — coel acan — 03:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Close and move to WP:UCFD. --Bduke 00:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well having supported the deletion of Category:Wikipedians who support Hezbollah and Template:User Hezbollah as a divisive and inflammatory category/template, the same reasoning for deletion should be applied to any category/template that attempts to divide Wikipedians along ideological lines in the Arab-Israeli conflict per WP:NOT#SOAP. Netsnipe ► 19:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close and move to Wikipedia:User categories for discussion. Otto4711 19:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment - How is this different from a userbox "I am a liberal American patriot?" (a userbox I've been using for awhile) or any userbox that reflects a user's political stance on hot topics like abortions and gay rights? mirageinred 23:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is about the category, not the userbox, but it should be moved to Wikipedia:User categories for discussion. --Bduke 00:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge Category:Ubuntu (Linux distribution) to Category:Ubuntu (Linux distribution) derivatives. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ubuntu (Linux distribution) to Category:Ubuntu (Linux distribution) derivatives

Merge, The two categories are identical, but the name of the latter is less ambiguous. Atp627 19:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, nom is correct. Although the target category is probably going to be speedy renamed to Category:Derivatives of Ubuntu (Linux distribution). — coel acan — 03:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I noticed some of the articles in Category:Ubuntu (Linux distribution) are actually not derivatives of Ubuntu, but rather software packages for Ubuntu. This explains the deliberate ambiguity in the name. However, putting all articles pertaining to third party software for Ubuntu in a category makes just about as much sense as putting all articles pertaining to third party software for Windows in a category. The articles in question are Automatix (tool), LinuxMCE, and Scibuntu. I would remove them myself, but I'm afraid this would cause some sort of controversy. So I suppose I'll just change my nomination to merge, removing the appropriate articles. Atp627 18:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge Category:Business schools in Scandinavia to Category:Business schools followed by recategorisation by country. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Business schools in Scandinavia to Category:Business schools in the Nordic countries

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Strictly speaking Finland and Iceland, whose schools are categorized in this category, are not Scandinavian countries. Groshna 18:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Business schools and then recategorise by country. Categorising by region is rarely a good idea as there are so often doubts or differences of opinion about which countries belong to the region. All the relevant countries have education categories, but there is no category:Education in the Nordic countries or Category:Education in Scandinavia. Choalbaton 20:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as detailed directly above.--Keefer4 | Talk 07:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - as with the recently-completed CFDs for sports broadcasting families and hockey families, the main category is capturing anyone who plays football and who has a relative who plays football. This creates te false impression that the inter-relationships are more widespread than they are and results in people who are unrelated to each other being improperly categorized as "family." The sub-cts for families should be deleted in favor of interlinking the relevant articles through the articles themselves or, in the event that there are a significant number of people in the family, a separate article on the family may be warranted. Otto4711 16:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to nominate everything in Category:Sports families? If so, they should probably just all be under one nom. Recury 18:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Experience has taught me not to make mass nominations that are too large, as a mass nom of the entire sports family tree would be. It often leads to a lot of "delete these but not those" sorts of !votes, making it difficult for participants to follow and for administrators to decipher and making consensus harder to achieve. Otto4711 19:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, if you are you could just nominate Category:Sports families and it wouldn't have to be a mass nomination or 5 different nominations. Recury 20:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep family occupation categories are defining if several members of the families are in the same occupation. It is no different than say Category:Political families for example. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Political families is housing articles on political families, not individual articles about members of political families. Whereas these categories are housing articles on individuals. Otto4711 23:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Where the family relationships are notable, they will be noted in the articles. The categories are redundant to that information. — coel acan — 03:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Far too many people in the world have played football. Doczilla 05:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - These general sports families categories should actually be named "people with family members in the same sport", as this is how they function. This is a poor way to categorize people; the relations betweeen individuals are blurred because everyone with a relative is grouped together. A couple of short sentences in each article would be much more useful than these horrible categories. As for the specific families, the articles can be linked easily enough through the text; the categories are not necessary. Dr. Submillimeter 08:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this category is capturing anyone who is involved with basketball and who also has a relative who is involved in basketball. As established in the recently completed CFDs for sports broadcasting families and hockey families, we should not be categorizing people in "...families" categories as it creates the false impression that all of the people in the category are inter-related. Familial relationships of this sort should be noted by interlinking the articles of the actual related people or, if there are significant numbers of people in the same family, a separate article for the family may be appropriate. Otto4711 16:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep family occupation categories are defining if several members of the families are in the same occupation. It is no different than say Category:Political families for example. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Political families is housing articles on political families, not individual articles about members of political families. Whereas this category is housing articles on individuals. Otto4711 23:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok so keep the category with just the articles about the families if thats the case. However, I think it should be kept as is.--Djsasso 23:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There do not appear to be any articles on the families. All the articles in the category are for individuals. Should someone at some point in the future create an article on one or more of the families then it can be housed in Category:Sports families. Otto4711 16:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I voted on all the other sporting families cats that keep being posted. It is defining to be part of a family involved in a particular professional sport. --Djsasso 23:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean that the category is needed. The family relationships between those people who all play a sport will inevitably be mentioned in the articles. Those people who don't actually play the sport shouldn't be included in these categories, since it's not defining for them (if any such people are in this particular cat). — coel acan — 03:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Where the family relationships are notable, they will be noted in the articles. The categories are redundant to that information. — coel acan — 03:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - These sports families categories should actually be named "people with family members in the same sport", as this is how they function. This is a poor way to categorize people; the relations betweeen individuals are blurred because everyone with a relative is grouped together. A couple of short sentences in each article would be much more useful than these horrible categories. Dr. Submillimeter 08:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category is essentially a duplicate or recreation of Category:Sounds of North Carolina but with fewer articles. --TinMan 15:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep pending clarification;. The article is about a Lagoon that happens to have 'Sound' in its name--that does not make it a Sound. Two different categories for two different types of bodies of water. Hmains 02:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sound vs Lagoon, and the article contained therein is not actually a sound, but a lagoon. Keeper Per parent cat Category:Lagoons of the United States. --Keefer4 | Talk 07:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:FA Premier League players to Category:Premier League players. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:FA Premier League players to Category:Premier League players

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, following rename of the article Premier League. robwingfield ^«T•C» 15:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, consistency is usually desirable. — coel acan — 03:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge both into Category:James-Younger Gang. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Dalton-James-Younger-Ringo Clan to Category:James-Younger gang

Merge, One way or another, it seems to be the same group of people. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 15:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but shouldn't it be James-Younger Gang with a capital G for the group name? The K in Billy the Kid gets capitalized. It's not just a description. It's the name the group was widely known by. Doczilla 16:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the article is at James-Younger gang, but that could be wrong too, of course. Google says James-Younger Gang is probably a proper noun. Recury 20:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have therefore moved the article to James-Younger Gang. Doczilla 06:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both to Category:James-Younger Gang, which seems to be what Doczilla and Recury are getting at. — coel acan — 04:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Doczilla 06:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both to Category:James-Younger Gang, then. Recury 19:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy delete by Wknight94 as nonsense. — coel acan — 03:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Someone incorrectly created this as a redirect to Category:Vlad, which has been nominated for deletion. I am not even sure as to what Amz is or what it has to do with Vlad. Whatever it is, it is not useful for categorization, and it should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 12:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Seattle Skier (talk) 23:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, WP:CSD#G1 nonsense, so tagged. — coel acan — 04:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Victims of Soviet repressions to Category:Soviet people

Merge, Ill-defined and unmaintainable, POV Stlemur 10:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a waste of time putting articles in categories as general as Category:Soviet people as anything but a staging post to a more precise category. Haddiscoe 11:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Most of the people who lived in the Soviet Union could be classified as "victims of Soviet repression", especially people who lived through Stalin's reign of power. If a subdivision is needed, then attempt something else. Dr. Submillimeter 12:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dr. Submillimeter. Would any Soviet people not be included in this category? Even those in power suffered from some forms of repressions. Vegaswikian 15:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For starters, many ppl outside SU were also victims of Soviet repressions. Next, there were repressions and there were repressions. Having to put up with Soviet everyday life is one thing, having to live in a GULAG is another.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If this is true, then the category's applicability is simply too broad. Dr. Submillimeter 18:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge without vetting so that non-Soviets are not included. Unsure about the category as stand-alone. Otto4711 16:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The intention of the category is clear, and it is useful. Possibly the name could be better, but it does not need to be rescoped. Choalbaton 20:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/repurpose to Soviet political prisoners / People sent for reeducation under the Soviet Union. 132.205.44.134 22:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Victims of Soviet repressions" and "Soviet people" are two completely different things. Not all Soviet people were victims of political repressions. Biophys 02:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or rename, current name is confusing or overly broad. >Radiant< 11:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not the same thing at all. Senior communists who retained their good standing in the party until they died were no more victims of Soviet repressions than medieval monarchs were victims of feudalism. Wilchett 02:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge into Category:Political repression in the Soviet Union. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Soviet repressions to Category:Political repression in the Soviet Union

Merge, Too broad, redundant, POV Stlemur 10:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Political repression in the Soviet Union - The two categories are clearly redundant (although the merge does not solve POV problems). Dr. Submillimeter 12:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Redundant.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge into Category:Political repression in the Soviet Union. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Acts of Soviet repression to Category:Political repression in the Soviet Union

Merge, Redundant with supercat Stlemur 10:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, but aren't both category titles a bit POV? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Political repression in the Soviet Union - The two categories are clearly redundant (although the merge does not solve POV problems). Dr. Submillimeter 12:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Redundant.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising for a recently created, barely operational online employment agency, pajamanation.com / Starlab#PajamaNation. Weregerbil 08:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not serve any purpose other than advertising. --rimshots^talk 08:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, spamverstising. --Stlemur 11:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia does not need spam categories. Dr. Submillimeter 12:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam. The only article left should be deleted as spam shortly. The other had editors already addressing the spam issue for this company and I removed the cat since it was not appropriate for that article. Vegaswikian 16:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, spam, and an essentially meaningless category. - Smerdis of Tlön 03:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Star Trek terms to Category:Star Trek terminology. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Star Trek terms to Category:Star Trek

Merge. This category's stated purpose is "to reduce the number of articles in Category:Star Trek." However, there are only 16 articles currently in category:Star Trek, and just 33 articles in the terminology category, so this seems entirely unnecessary. What's more, the articles in this category aren't actually about terminology; they're just a random assortment of otherwise hard-to-categorize subjects as far as I can tell. The best place for hard-to-categorize miscellanea is in the root category of the subject. Bryan Derksen 07:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, some of the articles in the category aren't terms per se, but others are. Class M planet and Away team are terms, while others like Vulcan salute are just things that have to do with the show and should be moved up to the root category like you say. Recury 13:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Star Trek terminology. This is a more common name for terms like these and the parent is Category:Terminology. Since there is a logic parent for these items, an upmerge should probably be avoided. Vegaswikian 17:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But the parent category has as an inclusion criterion "should not be used as a category for articles about those topics in general; when suitable specific categories don't exist to hold them they should be placed into the root category for that topic until a better categorization presents itself." This is exactly the reason I proposed this merge in the first place, this terminology category doesn't actually contain terminology articles but rather just "miscellany" articles. Bryan Derksen 05:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Star Trek terminology - Some of the articles are about genuine Star Trek words themselves (e.g. Cochrane (Star Trek), which I chose at random). The category should be kept for those terms. For other things that are not really about words but are about other things in Star Trek (e.g. Vulcan nerve pinch), they should be moved out of this category. Dr. Submillimeter 18:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Star Trek terminology 132.205.44.134 21:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Rename per above, these articles shouldn't be orphaned at the parent.--Keefer4 | Talk 22:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, but not per above! Much of this debate seems based on an inappropriate in-universe perspective. Whether the terminology is taken directly from the shows (which Dr. Submillimeter refers to as "genuine", a somewhat misguided adjective, IMO), or is simply used about the shows (as Vulcan salute or Vulcan nerve pinch), it's still Star Trek terminology. I would argue that Trekkie is a Star Trek term (or Star Trek terminology if you prefer), even though it's neither from the show nor (directly) about the show. If there is a desire to limit this to terms from the shows, then I think the appropriate name would be Category:Terminology from Star Trek. Otherwise, Category:Star Trek terminology should include all of the current contents, plus Trekkie. Personally, I think the second is a better idea (also, it's easier). Xtifr _tälk 01:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of the two articles you cite as being "about" the show (Vulcan salute and Vulcan nerve pinch) are articles about terminology, though. They don't have any content about the terms themselves. An article about terminology would have stuff about etymology and usage of the name and that sort of thing, or alternately would perhaps be a glossary of terms. Bryan Derksen 05:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need a category for each user's userbox creations. If kept would set precedent for countless other similar categories to be made. VegaDark 05:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 05:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Categorization by creator is inappropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 12:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 202.74.197.61 14:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy delete and salt by Premeditated Chaos, as recreation of deleted material. — coel acan — 21:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing this back for review as it was just recreated. Given the pencent the previous cat to be abused on POV and over cat (reasons for the delete IIRC), this one may need to be Detelted as well. J Greb 02:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt recreation of subjective, arbitrary category. Doczilla 05:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per discussion of February 2nd. -- Prove It ^(talk) 06:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/salt - We already discussed the problems with this category's vague interpretation and POV problems. This also encourages original research. Dr. Submillimeter 12:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Too vague to be useful as a category, though it would make make a good topic for a list or series of lists where it could be properly referenced. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Instead of a list, I suggest just using multiple examples at femme fatale (which needs a template to indicate that it has multiple maintenance/warning templates). Dr. Submillimeter 18:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt, WP:CSD#G4, so tagged. This is now the third time it was created, and it was just deleted for the second time on 1 April. Salting seems appropriate now. — coel acan — 04:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as recreation of deleted category. I'll leave it to someone else to add salt. Vegaswikian 05:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Multiple reasons. Primary: recreation of a previously deleted category. Secondary (also the reasons for original deletion): Uses of a POV term as inclusion criteria (villain), inappropriate categorization of characters by opponent, and overly vague. Since this one went through multiple CfDs with no "Keep" or "No consensus" results, I'd also suggest Salt. J Greb 02:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt recreation. Doczilla 02:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt as recreated content. Otto4711 03:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as recreation of deleted category. Vegaswikian 05:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Multiple reasons. Primary: recreation of a previously deleted category. Secondary (also the reasons for original deletion): Uses of a POV term as inclusion criteria (villain), inappropriate categorization of characters by opponent, and overly vague. J Greb 02:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt recreation. Doczilla 02:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt as recreated content. Otto4711 03:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as recreation of deleted category. Vegaswikian 05:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Multiple reasons. Primary: recreation of a previously deleted category. Secondary (also the reasons for original deletion): Uses of a POV term as inclusion criteria (villain), inappropriate categorization of characters by opponent, and overly vague. J Greb 02:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt recreation. Doczilla 02:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt as recreated content. Otto4711 03:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as recreation of deleted category. Vegaswikian 05:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Multiple reasons. Primary: recreation of a previously deleted category. Secondary (also the reasons for original deletion): Uses of a POV term as inclusion criteria (villain), inappropriate categorization of characters by opponent, and overly vague. J Greb 02:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt recreation. Doczilla 02:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt as recreated content. Otto4711 03:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as recreation of deleted category. Vegaswikian 05:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Multiple reasons. Primary: recreation of a previously deleted category. Secondary (also the reasons for original deletion): Uses of a POV term as inclusion criteria (villain), inappropriate categorization of characters by opponent, and overly vague. J Greb 02:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt recreation. Doczilla 02:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt as recreated content. Otto4711 03:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as recreation of deleted category. Vegaswikian 05:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Multiple reasons. Primary: recreation of a previously deleted category. Secondary (also the reasons for original deletion): Uses of a POV term as inclusion criteria (villain), inappropriate categorization of characters by opponent, and overly vague. J Greb 02:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt recreation. Doczilla 02:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt as recreated content. Otto4711 03:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as recreation of deleted category. Vegaswikian 05:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Multiple reasons. Primary: recreation of a previously deleted category. Secondary (also the reasons for original deletion): Uses of a POV term as inclusion criteria (villain), inappropriate categorization of characters by opponent, and overly vague. J Greb 02:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt recreation. Doczilla 02:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt as recreated content. Otto4711 03:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as recreation of deleted category. Vegaswikian 05:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Multiple reasons. Primary: recreation of a previously deleted category. Secondary (also the reasons for original deletion): Uses of a POV term as inclusion criteria (villain), inappropriate categorization of characters by opponent, and overly vague. J Greb 02:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt recreation. Doczilla 02:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt as recreated content. Otto4711 03:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as recreation of deleted category. Vegaswikian 05:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Multiple reasons. Primary: recreation of a previously deleted category. Secondary (also the reasons for original deletion): Uses of a POV term as inclusion criteria (villain), inappropriate categorization of characters by opponent, and overly vague. J Greb 02:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt recreation. Doczilla 02:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt as recreated content. Otto4711 03:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

April 2

Auto racing families

Baldwins

Category:Streets and squares by city

Category:Plazas

Category:Category:Piazzas of Italy and Category:Piazzas outside Italy

Category:Photos of athletes

Category:Wikipedians who support Israel

Category:Ubuntu (Linux distribution)

Category:Business schools in Scandinavia

Football players

Category:Basketball families

Category:Lagoons of North Carolina

Category:FA Premier League players

Category:The Dalton-James-Younger-Ringo Clan

Category:Amz

Category:Victims of Soviet repressions

Category:Soviet repressions

Category:Acts of Soviet repression

Category:PajamaNation

Category:Star Trek terms

Category:UserBoxes made by JJGD

Category:Fictional femmes fatales

Category:Thor villains

Category:Silver Surfer villains

Category:X-Men villains

Category:Captain America villains

Category:Daredevil villains

Category:Fantastic Four villains

Category:Hulk villains

Category:Iron Man villains

Category:Spider-Man villains